I see people stealing headstones to "mod" them for playing console games. Oh, and the "Linux for every single device man has ever constructed" crowd will love these too.
Lots of hard drive diagnostic software and other stuff is built for DOS. I mostly have that stuff loaded onto my UBCD these days. But I did have to rawrwite a floppy image to a floppy to use with an older machine, that wouldn't boot from a cd, just the other day. If I didn't have a floppy in my modern computer I wouldn't have been able to create the floppy disk to fix the older machine.
So to me the floppy still has a place in modern computing.
How will the fact these things were published on the Internet affect this issue.
This is like suing someone for reading a book in a public library, imho.
Yes, the IA makes these documents available, BUT, they're available in the exact same way they were before. Since when is it illegal to possess old information?
If a company doesn't want something to be publically accessable they should never put it on the Internet. I just hope the judge agrees with me on this...
I spend a lot of my day killing time. And I think I just got "that look" from the owner of the company who noticed I was surfing the web just now.
But I'm a support technician. If I'm busy it means stuff is broken and other people can't do their job. And if that's more than 1 person it's probably costing the company more than it costs them to have me sitting around doing nothing. I'm like insurance: got to have it, but using it means you have bigger problems than paying the premiums.
But I still feel like a slacker for sitting around surfing the net.
I wasn't commenting on communist movies. I was drawing a parallel between communism, or socialism, and that laywer's comments about Jackson having "enough" money.
Actually I'm kind of suprised about just how many/.'ers have posted similarly socialist ideas today.
"Peter Jackson is an incredible filmmaker who did the impossible on 'Lord of the Rings,' " this lawyer said. "But there's a certain piggishness involved here. New Line already gave him enough money to rebuild Baghdad, but it's still not enough for him."
If they could, advertisers would have adverts tattooed onto the insides of your eyelids, using glow in the dark ink while radio commercials played in your ear implants day and night...
This, like many other digital issues in the press lately, is about control; specifically, who's got it. It's not about the existance of free content on the Internet. It's about the stock price of an advertising company. Just as in digital media entertainment, smart companies will find a way to profit off of change. Dumb companies will wither and die, unless of course they can lobby for laws that protect their business... but that's another conversation.
If these advertising companies would just take a lesson from Google: people don't mind adverts so much as long as they're unobtrusive. Of course this would require respect for the consumer, something most advertisers don't have.
So the don't own any shares, so what?, it was a very minor part of my point.
And I think it's perfectly reasonable to expect that Apple will use the secure computing platform to make sure OSX only runs on Apple hardware. And while yes that will mean it runs on *86, it won't run on just any *86. So if you expect to run OSX on your $300 "I can't believe it's not Windows" box, prepare for some disappointment.
I'm just going to go ahead and quote what I said from the previous Apple-Intel thread:
" They'll probably have Intel make the Macintosh chips different so that OSX can't run on *86.
The reason I say this is that in the *86 market people want cheap hardware. If you can run OSX on a generic, $300 *86 then Apple's hardware sales will nose dive into the toilet. They will be finished as a computer manufacturer. Maybe their laptop line will survive, but their workstation products will be finished. And I don't think they want that.
Besides, MS is really powerful, AND they own part of Apple anyways. Even if OSX came out for the *86 MS would find a way to kill or molest the usefulness out of it.
They could start by killing the Office for Mac products. That alone would severly damage Mac sales to businesses that rely on MS Office, which is 99% of small business and a majority of large business.
Even the/. elite have to accept that MS Office has a very dominant market share.
OSX on the *86 is nice to dream about, but, unfortunately, it's not going to happen."
They'll probably have Intel make the Macintosh chips different so that OSX can't run on *86.
The reason I say this is that in the *86 market people want cheap hardware. If you can run OSX on a generic, $300 *86 then Apple's hardware sales will nose dive into the toilet. They will be finished as a computer manufacturer. Maybe their laptop line will survive, but their workstation products will be finished. And I don't think they want that.
Besides, MS is really powerful, AND they own part of Apple anyways. Even if OSX came out for the *86 MS would find a way to kill or molest the usefulness out of it.
They could start by killing the Office for Mac products. That alone would severly damage Mac sales to businesses that rely on MS Office, which is 99% of small business and a majority of large business.
Even the/. elite have to accept that MS Office has a very dominant market share.
OSX on the *86 is nice to dream about, but, unfortunately, it's not going to happen.
The thing that people don't seem to grasp about printers is Total Cost of Ownership. The TCO of laser is much cheaper in the long run because the cost per page is much lower.
Photo printing is cheaper and less hassle when done through a digital-to-print service too.
I am opposed to any technology that infringes on my rights. If I buy a CD I have the right to transfer those songs to my iPod. This technology infringes on that right.
Besides, all it takes is one person to realize that you can record ANYTHING coming out of your sound card and *bammo* these songs are available for illegal download.
All this technology will do is infringe on the rights of all honest consumers. The dishonest consumers will find a way around it.
I agree that copyrights should be protected, but not at the expense of consumer rights.
Guys, and girls, this was a production error. Now they want to sell you a production error for more than the cost of a fully labeled keyboard.
The sad part is that a bunch of *nix geeks that are always preaching about the lower TCO of *nix are going to run out and buy these things, spending more money on a lesser product...
Ok, lets face it. The biggest issue here is whether the end user can disable/bypass the advertising on a page. I don't ever remember saying to myself: "I don't like the artistic layout of this information". But I can't count the times I've used FF extensions to remove annoying advertising.
I know the practicality of it: advertising 'makes the world go round'. I understand that. But on the other hand, broad empowerment is a fundamental component of the Internet age. 'Top-Down' control will always find resistance on the Internet. This too is a practical fact of life.
Business is always trying to control the consumer. The problem is that it's harder on the Internet.
In case you hadn't noticed, it's "...glittery Paris Hilton tech..." (God I hate that term already) that sells consumer computers. People want to do EVERYTHING with their computer, not less.
When's the last time you overheard someone in a computer store telling the clerk: "Ok, I want to buy a really plain computer, with a 14' CRT monitor. I don't want high resolution graphics, 3D games, an MP3 player, TV-Out, a variable speed CPU, a gizillion megs of memory, etc..."
Face it, aside from the few middle aged Slashdoters that are reading this on their AT computers, people want the newest and coolest gadgets.
Besides, India doesn't focus on "...glittery Paris Hilton tech..." because the general population is poor. They're not being choosy. They simply can't support a market for expensive electronics.
I mean come on, why do you think we outsource jobs there? Because they have skills our domestic IT workers don't? No. It's because they'll work for near-slave wages. And 'I can't belive they're not slaves' can't afford food, let alone a 2000USD laptop. Hell, even at 200USD it will still be something the average person probably can't afford to 'splurge' on.
Slashdot Mirror
I see people stealing headstones to "mod" them for playing console games. Oh, and the "Linux for every single device man has ever constructed" crowd will love these too.
Linstone? Grave Hat? Cadaverix?
You'd either have to be gullible, living under a rock, or on the **AA payroll to believe this crap.
Learn the history of the music industry and technology. Technology has had to fight for the privlidge of force feeding that industry money.
Music industry execs are retarded.
I've got 3 maxtor HD's that have been running flawlessly, for more than 3 years, without a problem. I expect them to run for much much longer as well.
Today is the day I realized I was getting old.
So to me the floppy still has a place in modern computing.
How will the fact these things were published on the Internet affect this issue.
This is like suing someone for reading a book in a public library, imho.
Yes, the IA makes these documents available, BUT, they're available in the exact same way they were before. Since when is it illegal to possess old information?
If a company doesn't want something to be publically accessable they should never put it on the Internet. I just hope the judge agrees with me on this...
There's no questioning if this is going to happen. It's simply a question of who will win.
But I'm a support technician. If I'm busy it means stuff is broken and other people can't do their job. And if that's more than 1 person it's probably costing the company more than it costs them to have me sitting around doing nothing. I'm like insurance: got to have it, but using it means you have bigger problems than paying the premiums.
But I still feel like a slacker for sitting around surfing the net.
It's not fair.
You will always have a reflection of those people in the program. So the better the board members the better the program will be.
Deus Ex was the most fun I ever had with any game, hands down.
So basically they will all have what the Swiss are already enjoying?
Now I'll have to throw away my guitar. But if they build hentai sex robots I'll have to throw away my wife.
I wasn't commenting on communist movies. I was drawing a parallel between communism, or socialism, and that laywer's comments about Jackson having "enough" money.
/.'ers have posted similarly socialist ideas today.
Actually I'm kind of suprised about just how many
Anyone up for some communism?
Still think Tinfoil hats are for crazy people?
If they could, advertisers would have adverts tattooed onto the insides of your eyelids, using glow in the dark ink while radio commercials played in your ear implants day and night...
This, like many other digital issues in the press lately, is about control; specifically, who's got it. It's not about the existance of free content on the Internet. It's about the stock price of an advertising company. Just as in digital media entertainment, smart companies will find a way to profit off of change. Dumb companies will wither and die, unless of course they can lobby for laws that protect their business... but that's another conversation.
If these advertising companies would just take a lesson from Google: people don't mind adverts so much as long as they're unobtrusive. Of course this would require respect for the consumer, something most advertisers don't have.
And I think it's perfectly reasonable to expect that Apple will use the secure computing platform to make sure OSX only runs on Apple hardware. And while yes that will mean it runs on *86, it won't run on just any *86. So if you expect to run OSX on your $300 "I can't believe it's not Windows" box, prepare for some disappointment.
So let me revise my headline:
OSX isn't going to happen YOUR *86.
They'll probably have Intel make the Macintosh chips different so that OSX can't run on *86.
/. elite have to accept that MS Office has a very dominant market share.
The reason I say this is that in the *86 market people want cheap hardware. If you can run OSX on a generic, $300 *86 then Apple's hardware sales will nose dive into the toilet. They will be finished as a computer manufacturer. Maybe their laptop line will survive, but their workstation products will be finished. And I don't think they want that.
Besides, MS is really powerful, AND they own part of Apple anyways. Even if OSX came out for the *86 MS would find a way to kill or molest the usefulness out of it.
They could start by killing the Office for Mac products. That alone would severly damage Mac sales to businesses that rely on MS Office, which is 99% of small business and a majority of large business.
Even the
OSX on the *86 is nice to dream about, but, unfortunately, it's not going to happen.
The thing that people don't seem to grasp about printers is Total Cost of Ownership. The TCO of laser is much cheaper in the long run because the cost per page is much lower.
Photo printing is cheaper and less hassle when done through a digital-to-print service too.
Whaddya want to bet that they make it illegal AND continue to levy our blank media, with was intended to compensate for file sharing.
It's like a bribe that doesn't buy you anything. Fucking pussy government bending over for the lobby groups....
Besides, all it takes is one person to realize that you can record ANYTHING coming out of your sound card and *bammo* these songs are available for illegal download. All this technology will do is infringe on the rights of all honest consumers. The dishonest consumers will find a way around it.
I agree that copyrights should be protected, but not at the expense of consumer rights.
I love marketing.
Guys, and girls, this was a production error. Now they want to sell you a production error for more than the cost of a fully labeled keyboard.
The sad part is that a bunch of *nix geeks that are always preaching about the lower TCO of *nix are going to run out and buy these things, spending more money on a lesser product...
Marketing=Satan.
Ok, lets face it. The biggest issue here is whether the end user can disable/bypass the advertising on a page. I don't ever remember saying to myself: "I don't like the artistic layout of this information". But I can't count the times I've used FF extensions to remove annoying advertising.
I know the practicality of it: advertising 'makes the world go round'. I understand that. But on the other hand, broad empowerment is a fundamental component of the Internet age. 'Top-Down' control will always find resistance on the Internet. This too is a practical fact of life.
Business is always trying to control the consumer. The problem is that it's harder on the Internet.
In case you hadn't noticed, it's "...glittery Paris Hilton tech..." (God I hate that term already) that sells consumer computers. People want to do EVERYTHING with their computer, not less.
When's the last time you overheard someone in a computer store telling the clerk: "Ok, I want to buy a really plain computer, with a 14' CRT monitor. I don't want high resolution graphics, 3D games, an MP3 player, TV-Out, a variable speed CPU, a gizillion megs of memory, etc..."
Face it, aside from the few middle aged Slashdoters that are reading this on their AT computers, people want the newest and coolest gadgets.
Besides, India doesn't focus on "...glittery Paris Hilton tech..." because the general population is poor. They're not being choosy. They simply can't support a market for expensive electronics.
I mean come on, why do you think we outsource jobs there? Because they have skills our domestic IT workers don't? No. It's because they'll work for near-slave wages. And 'I can't belive they're not slaves' can't afford food, let alone a 2000USD laptop. Hell, even at 200USD it will still be something the average person probably can't afford to 'splurge' on.